On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:33 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2021-Feb-08, Mead, Scott wrote: > > > Hello, > > I recently looked at what it would take to make a running autovacuum > > pick-up a change to either cost_delay or cost_limit. Users frequently > > will have a conservative value set, and then wish to change it when > > autovacuum initiates a freeze on a relation. Most users end up > > finding out they are in ‘to prevent wraparound’ after it has happened, > > this means that if they want the vacuum to take advantage of more I/O, > > they need to stop and then restart the currently running vacuum (after > > reloading the GUCs). > > Hello, I think this has been overlooked, right? I can't find a relevant > commit, but maybe I just didn't look hard enough. I have a feeling that > this is something that we should address. If you still have the cycles, > please consider posting an updated patch and creating a commitfest > entry. > Thanks! Yeah, I should be able to get this together next week. > > Thanks > > -- > Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — > https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ > "Someone said that it is at least an order of magnitude more work to do > production software than a prototype. I think he is wrong by at least > an order of magnitude." (Brian Kernighan) > -- -- Scott Mead *sc...@meads.us <sc...@meads.us>*
